The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-06-04
SOME POINTS" IN THE ARKANSAS
DISCUSSION.

We are under obligations to Br. T. J.
PATTON, OF Sloan Springs, Ark, for the
following communication in regard to the
debate recently held at that place be-
tween Rev. THOMAS ABBOTT, Universal
list, and Rev. j. @. Robertson. The dis
cussion contin ued four days, beginning
May 9 and closing on May IL. The prop
ositions were as follows:
Prop. 1. The Bible teaches the final
salvation and happiness of all mankind.
L. ABBOTT affirms.
Prop. III. The Bible teaches the end
less punishment Of a part of mankind.
j. O. ROBERTSON affirms.
In regard to the debaters: Br. Abbott is
SO well known to the most OF our readers
as theologian and debster as to need no
special mention. His attainments and
ability to do the subject justice are gen.
orally understood. Rev. J. @. Robert
son is a minister of the Missionary Bap-
fist church, and is held to be one of their
ablest debaters. 1t seems from the re-
port that when he cannot meet an argu-
ment he tries to obliterate from the minds
OF his audience all proofs by saying his
opponent has "given him nothing to an
swer," ETC., and then he quotes certain
Scriptures and asserts that it proves end
less punishment. 1t is very free and
easy method of dealing with the prob
lens involved. Br. Patton's report fol-
lows:
Br. Abbott first clearly defined his terms as
salvation from sin and that this salvation is
not perfected in all mankind in this life. His
proposition was that a state of salvation is to
be the final condition of all mankind. He
further defined that this salvation is condi-
tional, God, Jesus and man each having their
proper part in the process of salvation.
He then proceeded to state that he would
furnish the terms of his proposition or their
equivalents, in various Bible phrases He
classed his Bible proofs on this wise:
First.-That which man shall do toward God
and Jesus; such as they shall remember
and turn unto the Lord" shall be drawn to
Jesus" "reconciled to God" etc.
Second.-That which men shall have and en-
|
be gathered in Jesus" righteousness and
strength in God'
Third.-That which God and Jesus will do
by and for men-such as, bring them to the
TRUTH ransom, raise them from the dead,
save Them
FOurth.-Ther condition will be changed in
that final state; they shall be deathless-"the
children of God,' like the angels of God in
heaven"
FUth.-The subjects of this changed condi-
ton are-man the representative of the race,
every man, all men, all nations, families and
kndreds.
SiUth.-The needy subjects of this salvation,
the ignorant. sinful, etc., have the assurance
that they shall be enlightened and made holy
in the final state.
Seuenth. = In this behalf, sin, death, the
grave, and all forms of evil shall come to
final end
, This is very brief indication of the basis
of the argument. These Bible proofs were
classed under general divisions, embracing
thirty-five proofs and arguments in all.
, The series of proofs and arguments MIR. A.
, presented on the nature of God-his goodness,
, love, knowledge and power. He being immu-
table, could not result in less than the final
good of all. Mr.. X. objected, that God is now
as good. wise and powerful as he ever will be-
: and as all are not saved, the argument is not
conclusive. -
A. rejoined that the issue is not of all now,
| but in the final state; none are perfectly
saved in this world, and his objection was
virtually to confine God to the present day
and hour, and say that which is not done nov
and never will be. The best of earth are not
perfectly saved now. and is the immutable
. | love nd in1nita of G0d No 20
of better state for man?
No reply.
a. further argued that God takes all man
kind away from earth by death is in itself an
assurance of better state. God could con-
tinue mans existence here; that he does not
i. is proof that he will do better for him in the
. future world
r. made no special reply, but quoted pas
sages from the Bible, such as the pardonless
sin, the second DEATH etc. He also pleaded that
salvation is conditioned, and argued that the
conditions are limited by death, and that in
the final judgment he that is filthy, etc., should
be so STILL a. replied that even if the pas
: sages could be made to apply after death
(which they could mott yet he failed to dis
prove affirmative arguments for neither of
them contained the terms of his propositions;
! Furthermore, has no application to the immor-
tai state-that the phrase, "hath never forgive
ness, is used in a limited sense. The fire of the
Jewish altar should never 20 out, and that the
phrase, neither in this world nor the world
to come, was properly neither in this age, the
then Jewish, nor in the Gentle age which now
is, but that after the fullness of the Gentiles
, shall come in, all Israel shall be saved. The
second death was the final Jewish death, and
could not mean the final death of men, for in
death. Also his rule that God is as good now
as he ever will be, still all men are not saved,
, defeats his reverse Scriptures; for the sinner
is not in the final torment, as God can be no
worse than he is now; therefore, he will never
be made infinitely miserable; besides, there is
, nothing in the phras 'let him that is filthy
be so still" in proof of a final sinful state;
also, 1.-The time was then at hand, and shortly
to come to pass, and could not be yet future
, event.
The judgment of the Jewish people was then
soon to be accomplished, and no further
change in the people would occur before the
time.
70 these explanations r. said that the Book
of Revelation was written long after the jew
ish judgment and must apply to the final judg-
ment, after the resurrection, and was the
same as Dan. xiii, etc., John ", when the
wicked will come forth to shame and damna-
ton; Thes l. IL, punished with everlasting
destruction"
A. showed from Rev. XII. s that the city of